The Gazette 1958-61

only source of income was £10 per week which she received from 3 of her children who were working and living with her, resided in Newry, County Down. She commenced proceedings for damages for injuries suffered by her while using the staircase in defendant's restaurant shop and premises at Dundalk as a customer. The defendant brought a motion for security for costs and in the affidavit grounding same it was stated that from a report furnished by an engineer, in respect of the stairway and steps, it was believed that the defendant had a good defence to the action. The plaintiff stated that she would be unable to give security for costs and asked the Court to exercise its discretion in her favour. Murnaghan, J. held that it was highly improbable that in this case the defendant, if successful, would succeed in recovering any costs against her. It seemed to him that the effect of granting the order sought would probably be to determine the action. He feared that if he made the order sought he would be doing an injustice to the plaintiff and therefore had little hesitation in exercising his discretion in favour of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court (Maguire, C. J. Kingsmill Moore, O'Daly, and Maguire, JJ.) held that the order for security for costs should be made in this case and accordingly reversed Murnaghan, J. Maguire, C. J., held that Mr. Justice Murnaghan was correct in saying that the position is that prima facie a defendant is entitled to an order for security costs where the plaintiff resided outside the juris diction. In order to deprive him of this right some special circumstances must be shown, e.g., that there is no defence to the action, as in the two cases to which reference has been made, or where there is shown to be ample assets within the jurisdiction. There may be other circumstances which would justify the exercise of the Court's discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Here it is suggested by the defendant, on the report of an engineer, that she has a good defence to the action. In view of this and no other circumstances being shown to justify its being refused the application should have been granted. Per Maguire, J., It was also unfortunate that there is no reciprocal rule corresponding to Or. XXIX, r. 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland (Note: O XXIX, r. 2 of the Northern Ireland Supreme Court Rules 1936 reads as follows : " A defendant is not entitled to an order com pelling the plaintiff to give security for costs solely on the ground that the plaintiff resides in England or Scotland or in the Irish Free State.") (Heaney v. Malacca— (1958) I.R. in).

Amount of security for costs should be reasonable. The plaintiff and the first-named defendant (who was the only defendant concerned in the motion for security for costs), both resided outside the jurisdiction. The plaintiff commenced proceedings for £25,000, forming a half share in a sweepstake ticket which won a first prize of £50,000. The High Court ordered the plaintiff to give security for costs and the Master of the High Court fixed the security at the sum of £2,500. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court on the ground that the amount was excessive. O'Daly, J., held that the amount of the security should be such as to constitute a security for the costs of the defendant, if successful, and not merely an earnest of good faith or even a security for part of those costs. The Master of the High Court not having departed from that principle, the figure fixed by him (£2,500) was reasonable and should be confirmed. Gibson v. Coleman (1950) I.R.,'50 followed. O'Daly, J., delivering judgment in the High Court said : The plaintiff by this motion has appealed against the order of the Master of the High Court, dated the 3Oth July, 1953, fixing the amount of security to be given by the plaintiff in respect of the costs of the defendant, Manuel Soares, at the sum of £2,500. The ground of the appeal is that the sum fixed is excessive. The subject-matter of the action is the sum of £25,000 a half share in an Irish Hospitals Trust Sweepstake Prize. The parties, the plaintiff and the defendant, are persons of lowly stations and they have their homes in New York State. The defendant's solicitor had an estimate of the defendant's costs of the action prepared by Mr. William D. Smith, costs drawer. This estimate, drawn up in the form of a draft bill, amounted to £3,226 195. od. The plaintiff's solicitor, on the other hand, took counsel with his assistant, Mr. William Maginn, who has considerable experience of taxation matters. Mr. Maginn made a report on the items in the defendant's estimate down to £1,767 123. od. An affidavit supporting Mr. Maginn's figure was made by Mr. Christopher McSweeney, costs drawer. The Master of the High Court, having considered this evidence, fixed the amount of the security at £2,500. This figure, it will be noted, is midway between the two figures put before him, and it exceeds the figure contended for by the plaintiff in Mr. Maginn's report by the sum of £732 8s. od. Mr. McGonigal has boldy advanced the pro position that security should be for the bare minimum which will enable the case to be presented. I think it is right to say that the Master did not act upon